Picking on Microsoft is eerily like the old days when everyone picked on IBM, all the while using IBM hardware and software. I remember when Microsoft was the good guy, putting the tools in the hands of the users and enabling us to break free of the guys in the white lab coats who worked in the refrigerated glass house. But the times change and Microsoft has gone from being the Rebel Alliance directly to Evil Empire in a very short period of time bypassing the whole Repubic and Jedi Knight stage completely. And the strain on the end user is starting to show.
The result is a real movement towards an "anything but Microsoft" strategy. The IS guys are tired of email bombs and viruses that use Outlook as their transport vehicle. Microsoft Word practically supported the macro virus world single-handedly ever since the first Concept virus got loose, with some help from Microsoft Excel. As mentioned in a previous issue of The Naked PC (#4.20), a bug was found in Excel 2002/2000 that would allow macros to bypass what little security there is in Excel and run without warning the user. Microsoft has issued another in a long list of patches to fix this Excel bug and promises to really start getting serious about security issues.
At best you'd have to say that security in Microsoft Office end user products is a bit thin, especially where Outlook is concerned. But it goes deeper than that. After the recent Code Red and Nimda virus hoopla the Gartner Group has issued an advisory that companies immediately explore alternatives to Microsoft's IIS Web server software. This is a big deal because a lot of IS people and CIOs will have to start justifying why they're sticking with IIS when firms like Gartner start waving red flags.
On one hand there's the security issue, and I think everyone agrees that security is something we're all taking more seriously these days. Computer viruses (like Melissa and that ilk) have been hugely annoying due to their voracious replication appetite or because they can leave a backdoor open that someone could come along and exploit, but they're fairly benign when it comes to actual destructive payloads. I think that will change for the worse given all that's going on in the world and we'll start seeing some really destructive things turned loose on the computing public.
Then there is Microsoft's continued drive to dominate the market and reinforce its revenue streams. Their trouble with the Justice Department seems to have evaporated faster than a politician's promise so they don't seem to be worried about their monopoly status any more. And as we've mentioned in previous issues, Microsoft is dropping technical support for older versions of Windows on a strict timetable. Windows 95, Windows NT 3.5, and Windows 3.x versions are "unsupported" as of December 31, 2001. Windows 98/98SE and Windows NT 4.x are dropped as of June 30, 2003, or a scant 18 months later. Microsoft can talk about saving on support costs but the bottom line is the bottom line. They want to force people to upgrade to the current version of Windows thereby pocketing the upgrade fees. And they can be sure there's a new current version of Windows whenever the cash flow projection demands feeding.
To show you the zeal that Microsoft is displaying in making what it deems as obsolete software lay down and die, Redmond had planned to expire NT 4.0-based Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer (MCSE) credentials on December 31st of this year (even though this product would be supported by Microsoft until June 2003). They stopped giving NT 4.0-based certification exams back in February. The MCSE is not an easy credential to obtain and most computer techs spend no small amount of time and money in becoming certified. Microsoft can, at its whim, expire a particular MCSE rating, thereby forcing those who need to be credentialed to have to move on and become certified in whatever program Microsoft wants people to use. Not what people or companies want to use, but what Microsoft wants them to use. Fortunately, there was such a hue and cry that Redmond relented and is now following a more rational approach and allowing someone to become a MCSE in a given product and retain that certification indefinitely.
What's pushing Microsoft to come up with all this is that there is a growing trend for companies to dig in with a version of Windows that meets their needs and not upgrade every time Redmond trots out a new version. By dropping support, Microsoft creates forced obsolescence, which is Microsoft's answer to those who don't upgrade. In effect they're saying that a company had better get with the program or be stuck with unsupported software. Look for this trend to bleed over into end user software products like Office too at some point.
What's does unsupported mean? Clearly you won't be able to call Microsoft and get tech support in real time. But what about the thousands of documents in the Microsoft online Knowledge Base? I've not seen any official Microsoft announcements but I know I'm going to start saving all my old TechNet CDs because I won't be surprised if on December 31st the Knowledge Base is purged of all articles on unsupported versions of Windows.
Is it time to really start thinking about getting off the Microsoft bandwagon? A number of columnists are saying that alternatives like Linux deserve a good look. The coming version 6 of Star Office (currently in beta) has been getting a lot of good press lately and it's really hard to argue with the "free" price tag. Personally I'm not sure. Although I'm very wary of Windows XP and its Passport component, I think highly of Windows 2000.
Perhaps more worrisome than Passport is the "product activation" scheme that is a part of Windows XP. According to Microsoft the purpose is simply copy protection. They want $100 (for Home edition) or $200 (for the Pro edition) for *every* computer you install Windows on--full stop, end of report, and by golly activation is supposed to accomplish this. That may be and I'm sure Redmond won't be unhappy with the increased cash flow that copy protection of this nature provides (although the lessons of history regarding users and copy protection seem to be lost to Redmond). But it's my opinion that copy protection is only a smoke screen for the true purpose of activation, which again is forced obsolescence. Once Redmond decides to make everyone upgrade to the next version of Windows I think they'll stop issuing activation codes and just tell you to upgrade should you need to re-activate a machine that you've upgraded or changed the hardware on.
What keeps most everyone with Microsoft products is the fact that we know how to use their software and who wants to start learning everything over again? This is what I call "training inertia" and companies have a real problem dealing with this because people resist change. If everyone on staff is going to dig in their heels and resist training it becomes a very expensive proposition. But if Microsoft makes using their products onerous enough there's more incentive to overcome this inertia.
Next issue I'll continue the discussion of training inertia and how it keeps companies from jumping ship away from Microsoft products.
You can reach T.J. Lee at:
mailto:tj_lee@TheNakedPC.com
